Federal system edit
extracted from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
(using Wikipedia Reflection Script)
|
Federal system edit
|
|
 |
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (January 2008) |
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008) |
Federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.
In Europe, "federalist" is sometimes used to describe those who favor stronger federal government, at a national or supranational level, as is the case of the European Union. The term is also used to describe those who favor weaker provincial governments. In the federal nations of Europe (including Germany, Austria and Switzerland) or South America (including Argentina or Brazil), the term "strong federalism" labels situations where sub-national states may have more power than the national (federal) government; it does not imply a strong central government. Some nations with federal systems, such as Switzerland and Canada, are officially confederations, because membership in the federation is voluntary.
In Canada, federalism implies opposition to sovereigntist movements (usually those of Quebec). The same is historically true in the United States. Advocates of a weaker federal government and stronger state governments are those that generally favor confederation, often related to early "anti-federalists" and later the Confederacy.
Australia, Brazil and India, among others, are also federal states.
Federalism may encompass as few as two or three internal divisions, as is the case in Belgium.
Ecclesiastic and theological federalism also exist within some Christian denominations.
Contents |
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (October 2008) |
In general, two extremes of federalism can be distinguished. In practice, however, there is always a mixture of both.
Competences are shared to a very high degree by both federal and state level, states are directly involved at a very high degree in federal decision making. Examples of this form of federalism are Germany and the European Union.
There is a clear separation of powers between the federal and state powers. This is the overwhelming form of federalism. An example of this form of federalism is the United States of America.
Several federal systems exist in Europe, such as Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium and the European Union. Germany and the EU are the only examples in the world where the upper federal house (Bundesrat in Germany ,Council in EU), is neither elected nor appointed, but is composed of the governments of their constituents.
In Germany, during the first part of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler viewed federalism as an obstacle. As he wrote in Mein Kampf, National Socialism must claim the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states.
In Britain, federalism has long been proposed as a solution to the "Irish Problem", and more lately, the "West Lothian question"1
Following the end of World War II, several movements began advocating a European federation, such as the Union of European Federalists or the European Movement, founded in 1948. Those organizations were influential in the European unification process, but never in a decisive way.
| “ | Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism.(Joseph H. H. Weiler) | ” |
| “ | Those uncomfortable using the “F” word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system (See for instance, Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast).(R. Daniel Kelemen) | ” |
The European Union has many of the characteristics of federalism. The European federalists campaigned in favour of a directly elected European Parliament (est. 1979), and were among the first to put a European Constitution on the agenda. Opponents of European federalists are both those in favor of a lesser role for the EU and those who wish for the EU to be ruled by national governments rather than by an indirectly elected parliament, and an unelected commission, President and Foreign Minister. Although federalism was mentioned both in the drafts of the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, it was never accepted by the representatives of the member countries. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Belgium, and Italy, while those historically most strongly opposed have been France and the United Kingdom. However, in recent times the French and UK governments have become increasingly pro-European Union and Poland and Austria have taken on the roles of primary opponents to a stronger EU.
On 1 January 1901 the Australian nation emerged as a federation. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, though through a Westminster system.
The fall of Brazilian monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Rui Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 Constitution, for example, granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate trade.
The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 introduced a new component to the ideas of federalism, including local governments as federal entities. Brazilian cities are now invested with some of the traditional powers usually granted to states in federalism, and although they are not allowed to have a Constitution, they are structured by an organic law.
In Canada, the system of federalism is described by the division of powers between the federal parliament and the country's provincial governments. Under the Constitution Act (previously known as the British North America Act) of 1867, specific powers of legislation are allotted. Section 91 of the constitution gives rise to federal authority for legislation, whereas section 92 gives rise to provincial powers. For matters not directly dealt with in the constitution, the federal government retains residual powers; however, conflict between which level of government has legislative jurisdiction over various matters has been a longstanding and evolving issue. Areas of contest include legislation with respect to regulation of the economy, taxation, and natural resources.
The Government of India (referred to as the Union Government or Central Government) was established by the Constitution of India, and is the governing authority of a federal union of 28 states and 7 union territories.
The governance of India is based on a tiered system, wherein the Constitution of India appropriates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution uses the Seventh Schedule to delimit the subjects under three categories, namely the Union list, the State list and the Concurrent list.
A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike American federalism, it is asymmetric2. Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals.
Although the Constitution did not envisage it, India is now a multi-lingual federation3. India has a multi-party system with political allegiances frequently based on linguistic, regional and caste identities4, necessitating coalition politics, especially at the Union level.
Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between state governments and the federal government of the United States.
Because the states were preexisting political entities, the U.S. Constitution did not need to define or explain federalism in any one section. However, it contains numerous mentions of the rights and responsibilities of state governments and state officials vis-à-vis the federal government. The federal government has certain expressed powers (also called enumerated powers), including the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, the necessary-and-proper clause gives the federal government the implied power to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government or forbid to the states—the reserved powers—are reserved to the people or the states.5 The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments--as well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government.
The federalist party of the United States was dissolved in 1824. Prior to this, they were heavily opposed by the anti-federalist party, which included powerful figures such as Thomas Jefferson. The anti-federalists mainly believed that:
a) The Legislative had too much power (mainly because of the necessary-and-proper clause) and that they were unchecked.
b) The Executive branch had too much power, and that there was no check on him. A dictator would arise.
c) A bill of rights should be coupled with the constitution to prevent a dictator (then believed to eventually be the president) from exploiting citizens. The federalists, on the other hand, argued that it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.
After the Civil War, the federal government increased greatly in size and influence, in terms of its influence on everyday life and its size relative to the state governments. There are several reasons for this, including the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights, and the provision of social services.
Many people believe that the federal government has grown beyond the bounds permitted by the express powers. From 1938 until 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate any federal statute as exceeding Congress' power under the Commerce Clause for over fifty years until United States v. Lopez overturned the power of the Federal government under the Commerce Clause (see also, challenging the Gun-Free School Zones Act). However, most actions by the federal government can find some legal support among the express powers, such as the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is used by Congress to justify certain federal laws, but its applicability has been narrowed by the Supreme Court in recent years. For example, the Supreme Court rejected the Gun-Free School Zones Act in the aforementioned Lopez decision, and they also rejected the civil remedy portion of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 in the United States v. Morrison decision. Recently, the Commerce Clause was interpreted to include marijuana laws in the Gonzales v. Raich decision.
Dual federalism holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted narrowly, such as the Tenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. Under this narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants such. In this case, there is a large group of powers belonging to the states or the people, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.6
However, dual federalism also holds the federal government as the final judge of its own powers. The establishment of Native American governments ( who are separate and distinct from state and federal government) exercising limited powers of sovereignty, has given rise to the concept of "bi-federalism."
|
|
This section contains information which may be of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. |
Federalism in the Kingdom of Belgium is an evolving system. Belgian federalism reflects both the linguistic communities (French and Dutch, and to a lesser extent German) and the economic regions (Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia). These correspond to the language areas in Belgium. Although officially there are four language areas, for all practical purposes only two languages are relevant on the federal level, Dutch and French:
On one hand, this means that the Belgian political landscape, generally speaking, consists of only two components: the Dutch-speaking population represented by Dutch-language political parties, and the majority populations of Wallonia and Brussels, represented by their French-speaking parties. The Brussels region emerges as a third component.9 This specific dual form of federalism, with the special position of Brussels, consequentially has a number of political issues -even minor ones- that are being fought out over the Dutch/French-language political division. With such issues, a final decision is only possible in the form of a compromise. This tendency gives this dual federalism model a number of traits that generally are ascribed to confederalism, and makes the future of Belgian federalism contentious.1011
On the other hand, Belgian federalism is federated with three components. An affirmative resolution concerning Brussels place in the federal system passed in the parliaments of Wallonia and Brussels.12 13These resolutions passed against the desires of Dutch-speaking parties, who are generally in favour of a federal system with two components (i.e. the Dutch and French Communities of Belgium). However, the Flemish representatives in the Parliament of the Brussels Capital-Region voted in favour of the Brussels resolution, with the exception of one party. The chairman of the Walloon Parliament stated on July 17, 2008 that, "Brussels would take an attitude".14 Brussels' parliament passed the resolution on July 18, 2008:
This aspect of Belgian federalism helps to explain the difficulties of partition; Brussels, with its importance, is linked both to Wallonia and Flanders and vice-versa. This situation, however, does not erase the traits of a confederation in the Belgian system.
Historical examples of two-sided federalism include:
Similar power-sharing arrangements between two communities can be found in Fiji, Saint Kitts and Nevis, in Northern Ireland (the Belfast Agreement) and in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.original research?
Federalism also finds expression in ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). For example, presbyterian church governance resembles parliamentary republicanism (a form of political federalism) to a large extent. In Presbyterian denominations, the local church is ruled by elected elders, some of which are ministerial. Each church then sends representatives or commissioners to presbyteries and further to a general assembly. Each greater level of assembly has ruling authority over its constituent members. In this governmental structure, each component has some level of sovereignty over itself. As in political federalism, in presbyterian ecclesiology there is shared sovereignty.
Other ecclesiologies also have significant representational and federalistic components, including the more anarchic congregational ecclesiology, and even in more hierarchical episcopal ecclesiology.
Some Christians argue that the earliest source of political federalism (or federalism in human institutions; in contrast to theological federalism) is the ecclesiastical federalism found in the Bible. They point to the structure of the early Christian Church as described (and to many, prescribed) in the New Testament. This is particularly demonstrated in the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts chapter 15, where the Apostles and elders gathered together to govern the Church; the Apostles being representatives of the universal Church, and elders being such for the local church. To this day, elements of federalism can be found in almost every Christian denomination, some more than others.
